+I thought about taking out a Manifold market for "Will Yudkowsky reply to [post tile] in a way that an _Overcoming Bias_ reader in 2008 would consider non-evasive, as assessed by [third party judge]?" and buying some NO. (I think Ben Pace is credibly neutral and would agree to judge.) The idea being that the existence of the market incentivizes honesty in a potential reply, because it would look very bad for him if he tries the kind of high-verbal-IQ ass-covering I've seen from him in the past and the judge rules that a 2008 _Overcoming Bias_ reader wouldn't buy it.
+
+But I'm leaning against the Manifold gambit because I don't want it look like I'm expecting or demanding a reply. I've more than used up my lifetime supply of Eliezer-bandwidth. The point is for me to explain to _everyone else_ why I think he's a phony and I don't respect him anymore. If he actively _wants_ to contest my claim that he's a phony—or try to win back my respect—he's welcome to do so. But given that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity, I'm just as happy to prosecute him _in absentia_.
+
+As for my Twitter marketing strategy, I tried drafting a seven-Tweet thread summary of the reputational attack (because no one is going to read a 16K word post), but I'm unhappy with how it came out and am leaning towards just doing a two Tweets (option C: <https://gist.github.com/zackmdavis/7395e1978c42e0251cd8ae7add406ebc>) rather than trying to summarize in a thead. That's possibly cowardly (pulling my punches because I'm scared), but I think it's classy (because it's better to not try to do complicated things on Twitter; the intellectual and literary qualities that make my punches _hit hard_ to people who have read the Sequences don't easily compress to the 280-character format)
+
+[TODO: reply to message in question]
+I do quote this November 2022 message in the post, which I argue doesn't violate consensus privacy norms, due to the conjunction of (a) it not being particularly different-in-character from things he's said in more public venues, and (b) there bring _more than 100 people in this server_ (not sure about this channel particularly); I argue that he can't have had a reasonable expectation of privacy (of the kind that would prohibit sharing a personal email, even if the email didn't say anything particularly different-in-character from things the author said in a more public venue). But I'm listening if someone wants to argue that I'm misjudging the consensus privacy norms.